About the Firm

Murphy Law Firm specializes in data breach class actions, federal securities class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. The firm has extensive experience in securing favorable outcomes for its clients, fighting tirelessly from case inception through final recovery. The firm’s founding member has successfully litigated numerous complex cases in courts across the country, with notable cases including:

• Bahnmaier v. Wichita State University, Case No. 2:20-cv-02246-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan. 2020), a data breach class action on behalf of the approximately 443,000 former and current students and employees of Wichita State University whose personal identifiable information was exposed to cybercriminals. The case was efficiently litigated to provide a swift and fair recovery to all class members, including compensation for lost time, reimbursement of expenses, reimbursement for the purchase of identity theft protection, and injunctive relief.
• In re: Samsung Top-Load Washing Machine Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 17-ml-2792-D (W.D. Okla. 2017), a consumer sales practices and products liability class action against Samsung, Electronics Co., Ltd., and numerous home appliance stores for the manufacture and sale of alleged defective washing machines. The multi-district complex litigation resulted from the consolidation of 26 individual actions and brought claims on behalf of approximately 2.8 million individuals who purchased washing machines that were recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. After years of litigation, a favorable settlement was secured, which brought millions of dollars’ worth of benefits to consumers.
• Angeley v. UTi Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02066-CBM-E (C.D. Cal. 2014), a securities class action against international shipping company UTi Worldwide, Inc. and its corporate officers for alleged misrepresentations about the progress of the company’s implementation of its new consolidated operating system while failing to disclose the system’s critical problems. The case involved extensive motion practice, a successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, more than 2 million pages of document production, multiple depositions, and ultimately a settlement that recovered 40.6% of investors’ losses.
• Lortiz v. Exide Technologies, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02607-SVW-E (C.D. Cal. 2013), a securities class action against corporate officers for alleged misrepresentations that concealed the company’s environmental abuses and worsening financial condition. The case was highly technical, involving several scientific and financial experts, more than 3 million pages of document production, 26 depositions, and numerous dispositive motions. The case settled just weeks before trial for a recovery that secured 35.6% of investors’ losses, despite the company being in bankruptcy.
• Nakkhumpun v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-01038-CMA-CBS (D. Colo. 2012), a securities class action against former officers and directors of Delta Petroleum Corporation for allegedly misrepresenting the company’s financial condition and the value of its assets. The case involved significant motion practice and a successful appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case ultimately settled for a distribution to investors of 73% of their losses.
• In re Ener1 Securities Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-05794-PAC (S.D.N.Y. 2011), a securities class action against corporate officers of Ener1, Inc., one of the then-leading electrical vehicle manufacturers, for alleged misrepresentations relating to the company’s accounting for unsold inventory and revenue recognition. Following substantial briefing, the case was settled for a recovery that provided investors with more than 40% of their losses, despite the company having filed for bankruptcy protection.
• Wandel v. Weatherford International, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01305-LAK (S.D.N.Y. 2012), a shareholder derivative action against officers and directors of Weatherford International, Inc. for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to the improper accounting of more than 900 million of net income over the course of several years. Despite challenging legal barriers, including complex corporate accounting issues and matters of international law (as the company was then-incorporated in Switzerland), shareholders were able to settle the case on behalf of the company and achieved significant corporate governance improvements.